判決理由書／裁決書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判決理由書／裁決書為準。
The judgment notes that the prosecution, in response to changes in judicial resources and venue availability, applied to the court to consolidate three cases and two cases respectively for trial, and dealt with the applications in writing. Some defendants opposed the consolidation, requesting a public hearing and an adjournment; the prosecution listed resource limitations, hearing schedules and the saving of court facilities as reasons, and cited relevant human rights legislation and procedural practice guidelines, arguing that consolidation would contribute to the reasonable use of judicial resources.
Based on precedent and the principles of criminal case progress indicators, the established hearing arrangements and dates should not be changed without sufficient reason and court approval.
Having taken into account the existing number of courtrooms and spatial arrangements, the practicality of the original separate plans, and the parties’ focal points of dispute, the first consolidation application was considered to lack sufficient grounds for change, while the second application, given the similar disputes and availability of suitable venues, was deemed appropriate for consolidation.
The court, in the context of special circumstances such as the pandemic, reviews non-factual determination applications in writing and must strike a balance between fairness and resource utilisation. It does not encourage undue changes of stance, but will reassess the appropriateness of applications as circumstances require.
The court dismissed the application to consolidate the three cases, approved the consolidation of the other two cases for trial, and provisionally scheduled a 40-day consolidated hearing period from 2023年8月14日至10月9日. All parties must contact the listing officer within 28 days to arrange a pre-trial review. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書
判刑理由書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判刑理由書為準。
According to the judgment, the 23 defendants held a demonstration on 29 September 2019 in the Admiralty area of Hong Kong without a “Notice of No Objection”. The demonstration escalated through three stages into a riot. Protesters vandalised public property, erected roadblocks, set fires, and threw petrol bombs and hard objects on Hennessy Road, Harcourt Road and Queensway, engaging in violent confrontation with the police. Twenty-one pleaded guilty to rioting; one was additionally charged with possessing a laser pointer in a public place; two pleaded not guilty and were convicted after trial.
Rioting carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, generally imposed as immediate custody; the court used 51 months as the base for the rioting offence and six months for the laser pointer offence, resulting in a combined base sentence of 54 months.
The riot’s impact was significant: more than a thousand participants, it lasted over two hours, was organised and premeditated, and caused serious disruption to public order and the economy, requiring firm upholding of the rule of law and sending a deterrent message; guilty pleas and individual mitigation may justify some reduction; motives, ideology, youth or first-time offending are not grounds for reduction.
The court emphasised that violence undermining social peace will not be tolerated, and that violence is not a solution. It urged the defendants to reflect deeply, learn from their mistakes, and in future become individuals who contribute to their families and society.
After granting discretionary reductions for guilty pleas and individual circumstances, the court imposed immediate imprisonment, with final sentences ranging from 32 to 46 months for all defendants. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書